Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Nerdlinger t1_iu4ppot wrote

> Furthermore, a photograph of the influential Dutchman's studio, taken days after his death shows the same picture sitting on an easel the other way up. > The image was published in the American lifestyle magazine Town and Country in June 1944.

Of course, we won't include that photo in our article, but rather a different photo which doesn't show the artwork.

356

DannyDaemonic t1_iuefqvl wrote

And then they all pretend like it's so obvious and they figured it out without the picture when no one noticed for 75 years.

1

Anonymoustard t1_iu4pjym wrote

So my cranky grandpa was right that you could hang modem at upside down and nobody would notice, hmmm.

163

JakeArvizu t1_iu5g9kp wrote

It's funny because this "modern" art is probably just as old as your Grandpa.

27

Patsfan618 t1_iu5pdyb wrote

Modern, in this case, refers to a style or era of art that was produced between the 1860's and 1970's.

Today's art "era" would be considered the postmodern or contemporary

30

JakeArvizu t1_iu5xme5 wrote

No I know. I'm just commenting that it's interesting people still can't let it go. Like this art has now existed for like a century and you still have people who "don't get it".

1

Hot_Outlandishness55 t1_iuafjpv wrote

Good point. There are these weird people that don't even know if it's up or down. Including everyone who stepped inside MoMA.

3

JakeArvizu t1_iuaxxxq wrote

Now there's these weird people who care so much whether it's up or down. It's art, it's there to invoke emotion. If you don't like it who cares move on lol. People get so worked up over modern art style.

Put it this way If say you bought a really nice red shirt, but it was actually a mistake the designer intended for it to be blue. Does that mean you're stupid to like the shirt or anyone else who did?

The painting is simplistic lines, the orientation while part of it's composition is obviously easy to mistake. Doesn't somehow now make the work meaningless or stupid. My favorite painting is Jackson Pollock's August rhythm. You could probably flip it in any orientation I would honestly not be able to tell the difference.

1

primejanus t1_iu6ar81 wrote

It gets even better. There have been a few occasions in which a janitor has mistakenly thrown out modern art because they confused it for actual trash

19

Lord_Aldrich t1_iu9hnky wrote

In the artist's defense that piece was more of a sculpture that was literally made of trash, and was supposed to be a commentary on consumerism. So the janitor throwing it away basically just made it into a performance art piece.

The artist was pissed tho, so yeah, maybe it was just a shit piece, lol

5

mynameisalso t1_iu51hhj wrote

Someone noticed.

16

lod001 t1_iu4s1e8 wrote

So that one Arthur episode can happen in real life!

151

Burnyburner3rd t1_iu4vf0g wrote

I knew this was in a tv show. But I thought they based the episode around a real event. Now I’m unsure what to think lol

40

Operational117 t1_iu5ur10 wrote

They say fiction mimics real-life. Is this a case of “real-life mimics fiction”?

The line blurs…

9

Syn7axError t1_iu6q0h0 wrote

They probably did. I've heard of this happening a few times.

3

Dearness t1_iu57unq wrote

That was the first thing I thought about, and it was even a Mondrian-esque picture in the episode!

11

EurekaSm0ke t1_iu53du3 wrote

I was just about to post this! It's one of the only episodes I remember.

4

antiqueboi t1_iucssi5 wrote

I thought of this Arthur episode too. lmaooo

2

grrliz t1_iu7lqcq wrote

I'm so glad this is the top comment.

1

animatedrouge2 t1_iu5is0a wrote

I actually really like Piet Mondrian’s art. It looks like random lines and colors, but there a whole bunch evolution of his work that shows how he reduced and reduced paintings until they were just color fields. I can see why people wouldn’t like it, but I think it’s interesting

67

idsayimafanoffrogs t1_iu6jfsl wrote

I think thats particularly interesting seeing the other works to give that context. If I Had simply seen the reductions at the end without seeing the progression that it took to get there that would be completely lost on me. Makes me wonder about all those other pieces lost on me simply because the greater context of the work couldn’t be shown

17

BrianMincey t1_iu6x6xr wrote

I also believe many of the people who say they don’t appreciate these works have never seen them in person. A picture in a book can’t begin to replicate many of these works.

7

Reborn_Rhubarb t1_iu8idn2 wrote

I have had the privilege of seeing both a Jackson Pollock and a Rothko exhibit in person, and I can attest that it is a stunning difference. Once you get close enough that you can see the individual brushstrokes and the depth of the paint on the canvas, the craftsmanship of the art shines through in ways one could never imagine from viewing it in pictures on a screen or a page.

7

spqrnbb t1_iu4u194 wrote

Call me crazy, but I prefer paintings that you can tell whether someone has it displayed correctly.

47

JakeArvizu t1_iu5gm4w wrote

You can't appreciate a Mondrian or a Jackson Pollock? Idk man something about Autumn Rhythm is just so visually appealing to me.

16

spqrnbb t1_iu5ipff wrote

I prefer paintings with something of substance as a subject. The modern artists who work with shape and color in the vein of Pollock and Mondrian make pretty pieces. I just don't prefer them.

4

JakeArvizu t1_iu5xvqs wrote

That's understandable everyone likes different things. I guess I just prefer the emotion or idk visual stimuli that they produce. Like Mondrians feel sleek and cool. Then a Pollock feels idk inspiring or motivational for some reason.

7

LogicalConstant t1_iudh1h5 wrote

I really enjoy the visual appeal of pollack paintings, but there's a voice in my head that I can't silence. It says "I could have commissioned a 6 year-old to paint this for the cost of a candy bar. The level of skill required is much, much lower than for other styles of art. It looks cool, but that's about it. Even if the artist was trying to express certain emotions and ideas, there's no way for that to be effectively communicated to the viewer in any meaningful way. It's not really a representation of anything. The things that AREN'T in the painting are more important than the things that are. That's interesting as a novelty, but it gets old incredibly fast. I'd pay $40 for this piece and really enjoy owning it, but anyone who pays millions has motivations beyond the visual appeal and appreciation for the artist's skill and expression. It's the emperor's new clothes."

Idk, maybe you could say that about most art. I'm probably just too dumb to appreciate it.

1

empfindsamkeit t1_iu69u13 wrote

Call me a philistine, but I prefer paintings that you couldn't toss on the floor of an abandoned building or place in the corner of a janitorial closet and have no one notice it was "art" instead of random garbage.

−6

dofffman t1_iu5ncc3 wrote

Hi crazy im dad. Seriously though I agree. My favorite is Hyperrealism.

−6

fuck_the_fuckin_mods t1_iu5rqkx wrote

I find that much weirder than liking the abstract stuff TBH. If it’s indistinguishable from photography, isn’t the reference photograph the actual art in the first place? It’s just been enlarged using a human printer.

10

empfindsamkeit t1_iu68pmh wrote

It doesn't literally have to be a painting of a photograph, right? It's just an aesthetic. If such a photo did exist, it would look more or less like it.

2

fuck_the_fuckin_mods t1_iu69kay wrote

It doesn’t have to but it generally is. As an aesthetic I’m fine with it (just don’t find it particularly interesting) but most of the drawings/paintings that I see online are definitely working from a photo.

2

dofffman t1_iu6na90 wrote

nope because the painting itself never existed in reality. I especially like the one with the guy being beckoned on into a lake with nymphs.

2

pegothejerk t1_iu4oz0x wrote

I like how once an expert pointed out it's upside down the rest were like "of course, it's so obvious, duh"

43

tetoffens t1_iu4pavo wrote

It's a four in one painting. It makes just as much sense no matter how you hang it.

27

SignHereCo t1_iu4ot5z wrote

Relieved to hear art news that doesn't involve soup, glue, and crazy people.

18

Dirxcec t1_iu4spkn wrote

Right? Fake outrage driven by fossil fuel companies is so corny. They weren't even realistic.

−18

WhiteHairedWidow t1_iu5e16m wrote

https://reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/yc815t/_/itli9fu/?context=1

1

Dirxcec t1_iu5o3wo wrote

That isn't great proof nor what I was referencing but it's neat to see the other angles on it. I am not saying they got funding from Oil, just that it feels super fake and out of place. I'm more of, this is psy-ops kind of stuff.

We know having bad actors in the group delegitimizes their message. We know that some movements in the past gets swamped down by bad actors and bots. This feels similar to that.

0

jaisaiquai t1_iu4vhfd wrote

Binky Barnes warned us all about this!

15

M0n5tr0 t1_iu50o9s wrote

I know this particular art issue matters to people out there and I don't want to down play it but as I'm trying to survive through inflation and just pay for groceries I have to just giggle/cry at this article.

Anyone else at that point or is it just me?

9

JakeArvizu t1_iu5grws wrote

I mean you can observe stuff in life without it "mattering". Don't think anyone is asking for a world council on this. Just hmm interesting. Okay moving on.

12

Portalrules123 t1_iu7fv76 wrote

Yeah it's PROBABLY not healthy to negatively react to every pointless article that you see, but that's just me.

2

JakeArvizu t1_iu7vgm8 wrote

What there's probably a thousand other cherry picked article's that are about something stupid I can be pissed off about. Are you trying to tell me that's not healthy

1

[deleted] t1_iu5cp33 wrote

definitely been at that point for some time now

3

justforthearticles20 t1_iu5t3br wrote

Put a sheet of clear plastic over it and turn it to the correct orientation. Leave plastic.

Actually All Museums should be protecting all their paintings now that Climate Protesters are destroying them for publicity.

6

BrianMincey t1_iu6xn3q wrote

Anyone who destroys our beautiful artistic treasures, for whatever reason, is despicable. There are loads of ways to demonstrate. Destroying our artistic heritage shouldn’t be one of them.

2

art4idiots t1_iu7hhfb wrote

As an art lover, I agree, but as a planet lover, what's the point of artistic heritage if we fuck our planet to extinction? At a certain point drastic measures are all that's left. Are we at that point now? I hope not, but clearly these people think so.

5

BrianMincey t1_iu7mekt wrote

The mold in the Petri dish…it keeps spreading, consuming all of the available supply of food until there is nothing left to consume. The individual spores, even if they knew they are doomed, are helpless to stop it.

The unpleasant truth is that humanity is destined for a bleak future…eventually the oceans will have so much plastic and toxins there will be no fish or fowl, the earth will be robbed of all its resources and littered with toxic waste, there will be few species of wild animals left.

The only real solution is population control. We could exist comfortably on this planet for many thousands of years with 4-5 billion people…but seven billion will become eight billion, and like the mold on the Petri dish, will continues to spread unchecked.

1

art4idiots t1_iu7p7c2 wrote

I can't tell if you are vehemently for or against these protests lol or maybe you aren't vehemently for or against anything due to, ya know, our bleak unavoidable apocalypse. You've just left me with more questions than answers. The only thing I know for sure is that I should not have read that before bed...

Edit: oh shit you're the same person?? Lmao with that bleak ass outlook why do you give a shit about our artistic heritage, save the art but implement population control? Damn, you go hard Brian Mincey

2

BrianMincey t1_iu7ppf8 wrote

As Kosh said, “The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.”

Just carve out as much happiness as you can. Life, at least for now, is pretty sweet. This is a golden age of decadence that our descendants will look back on in wonder.

1

art4idiots t1_iu7pufm wrote

I both envy and pity you lol you are quite the enigma

2

dinodogst123 t1_iu89cl7 wrote

Alternatively, just remake it right side up. It's a handful of straight, colored lines. Not exactly complicated.

1

Gadburn t1_iu6etu4 wrote

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, especially when it comes to art but with this abstract stuff...I mean it was upside down for 75 years and no one could tell the difference, why does it even matter?

4

art4idiots t1_iu7g367 wrote

Long answer, short... it doesn't matter, it's just kinda funny.

A slightly longer answer... all things equal, may as well go with the artist's original vision. Usually, the hardware on the back of the work dictates how you hang it, so it could have been an error at the framers or some random assistant, or an art handler, but if the artist didn't put any hardware or other indication of orientation then it is likely not vital to the purpose of the work.

5

Gadburn t1_iu7injg wrote

Both the long and short of it was a good answer haha.

2

kevboard t1_iu7p8if wrote

this shows how meaningless this kind of art is. it's so devoid of meaning that noone knows if it's even the right side up or not.

this is a design, not art

4

art4idiots t1_iu7we2i wrote

It was always really hard to pinpoint the difference between art and design. Until a wise professor told me that art asks questions and design answers them. I'll have to call her up and let her know it's even easier than that. If the orientation is obvious it's art, if it's not obvious it's design

1

dinodogst123 t1_iu89xd2 wrote

What "questions" does these straight lines ask?

2

art4idiots t1_iu9i3j6 wrote

Do we need a visually perceived reality to be the subject of a painting? Can we still represent the spiritual balance of the cosmos with the most basic of color and form?

I should probably add that abstract artists often work on series and or bodies of work that explore certain subject matter, so seeing just 1 piece in that body of work may not be enough to get the full picture of what question(s) the artist is posing. If this was the only work Mondrian ever made, no one would know his name. Frankly, this is not even close to one of his best. It's just another attempt to explore the questions he's asking

1

kstinfo t1_iu6p1bx wrote

Meyer-Buese looks very proud and enjoying the humor - as well she should.

3

kstinfo t1_iu6ri2x wrote

This is so cool because abstract geometrics are about balance and how the viewer feels when looking at it. In this case the 'weight' was supposed to be at the top and not the bottom. Having it right-side up would put the viewer in touch with what the artist had in mind.

3

taez555 t1_iu4v480 wrote

Are they sure? It might be sideways.

2

Argikeraunos t1_iu4z6kh wrote

What if he painted it upside down

2

Oblivions_gate t1_iu5nv60 wrote

Can someone please tell me what is so special about this? I cannot understand how “art” like this is so important.

2

Amiiboid t1_iu5q268 wrote

Would you have The Partridge Family riding around in a banal yellow bus?

6

art4idiots t1_iu7k5y8 wrote

Would you rather us all walk around in grey tunics, live in square buildings, listen to scales, and look at portraits of kings?

Art like this is important because it creates visual trends that persist through time. The influence of this art and artist can be found all over the world in every facet of life. If you don't think style and expression are important then I guess you wouldn't care about this art or any abstract art, but even still the impact is undeniable, from architecture to fashion, from music to tv and film. Mondrian and his work have been influencing aesthetic culture for over a century. Many people see that impact as important or interesting.

Edit: to be fair to you, this particular work in question looks like a cracked-out rip-off and is certainly not one of his best or most important individual works, but his body of work in general is one of the most influential in recent(ish) history

2

Oblivions_gate t1_iu7lfhs wrote

Yeah abstract art is just kind of overrated to me. I’ve seen kids make this kind of work and it has absolutely no profound message or anything to me. I enjoy art. Art is just like different music genres, everyone has a preference in their own tastes and what they find meaning in.

−2

art4idiots t1_iu7oi82 wrote

It's no wonder to me that anti- abstract art people always use the same tired "kids can do it" trope...

Yea, kids can do it! Better than most adults. Some kids are actually phenomenal at it. That doesn't diminish its importance, kids can eat and breathe and shit too, and that's all pretty fuckin important.

You're absolutely allowed to like what you like and not what you don't, but (and this is the only reason i responded in the first place) you asked why it was important, I answered, and instead of addressing, literally, anything that I wrote you just jumped into telling me why you don't like it. No one's trying to force you to like it. So like, why ask the question? Did you even want an answer or did you just want to have someone primed to read your lazy critique?

Lastly, I'm sorry. I know you're probably a great person, and I feel like I just ripped into you, and I really don't mean anything personal about it. I think I foolishly got my hopes up that you were actually interested in an answer to your question and couldn't resist this retort. Godspeed, keep being and doing you, just maybe next time come at me with a less cliché critique. Really dive deep into your dislike, I wanna hear it lol ;)

3

Oblivions_gate t1_iu7q354 wrote

Oh so you so you are a pretentious cunt, okay. lol.

There is nothing interesting at all about abstract art. Great, you can put some shapes on canvas that may or may not resemble something?

There’s a reason that cliche exists, and I think it’s true. I know children like you are very easily entertained by the prospect of simple lines and colors to look at to keep your attention, but for me it’s just useless junk. Realistically, everything is pointless and nothing matters, it will all burn or rot in one way or another. When someone shows me abstract art though I just do not understand how people think it’s a valuable piece of art.

But hey if you want to be an insufferable prick and type out novels that I couldn’t honestly care less to read while you sit on some weird ass high horse you do you.

−4

art4idiots t1_iu7qs4j wrote

That's a little better, but too much focus on me and not on your hatred of abstract art, you're getting distracted. Could you try again, but this time focus on why colors and shapes are for stupid little kids, like me, and not big smart adults, like you.

Edit: Also, my username makes it pretty clear I am, in fact, a pretentious cunt and an insufferable prick, so that's good news! You're not wrong about everything! ;)

3

255001434 t1_iu66nlo wrote

Proof that it doesn't matter.

2

Funkybeatzzz t1_iu58m2u wrote

Check behind it for finger and handprints. There might be a serial killer in the loose.

1

Xaxxon t1_iu5z9oo wrote

Turns out the artist doesn't define the art. The viewers do.

If people want to look at it in this direction, then they're just as entitled to do so as any other direction.

1

Bitterowner t1_iu6ktc3 wrote

This is art? Damn my little niece is gona be a millionaire.

1

TheHatedMilkMachine t1_iu7fut6 wrote

This is humor? damn my little niece can also paste an overused joke structure hoping to mine a few upvotes

1

Bitterowner t1_iufsms2 wrote

I dont care about upvotes. Overused? More like the truth. Not my fault your super sensitive.

1

TheFoxandTheSandor t1_iu8e9qw wrote

Eddie Van Galen’s guitar was upside down the whole time???

1

antiqueboi t1_iucsrat wrote

isn't this a plot of one of the Arthur episodes? lol

1

apvizion t1_iujhr8d wrote

I thought that was a pic of a taped up window, is that the "art" the article is about?

1

dust-ranger t1_iu4rmof wrote

They hung it "Aussie style"

0

Environmental_Ad5786 t1_iu4vqwy wrote

I hope the next thing they figure out is upside down is a climate chart. That would be a bit cooler

−6

formerPhillyguy t1_iu4z3ca wrote

It's sad that this is considered art and is hanging in a museum. Any elementary age child could create this.

It's like the work of Sautine. His work is garbage and selling for next to nothing until Albert Barnes bought some of his paintings to use in his art school as an example of how to use color. because Barnes bought some pieces, the values skyrocketed. His work was still garbage though.

−13

UrbanStray t1_iu59ati wrote

An elementary school age child could have written the riff for Smoke on the Water. But they didn't.

9

bi7worker t1_iu5qpgz wrote

Im not into modern art that much.. but you should attempt to go on an exhibition that would explain the origins of it, why and how it was done. You may end up finding some clues about why so many people consider it as art. Telling it has no value just tell us you have no understanding of what is art vs what is a good looking picture. Two very different things that has different purposes.

5

formerPhillyguy t1_iu6q74l wrote

I guess you missed my meaning. People didn't consider it "art" until somebody famous in the art world bought it and, all of a sudden, it was "art".

0

bi7worker t1_iu7kr56 wrote

Art is also a market. In all markets, there are scams, overvalued brands, whales who squander their money on the next big thing. But what remains in the history of art is much more than that. Painters of kings have been forgotten, while street artists have remained in posterity. Art is not chosen by men but by humanity.

2

art4idiots t1_iu7slay wrote

Damn, that line is fuckin good. I'll definitely steal that for the next time a thread about art pops up and I have to go to battle again

1

LifeSpanner t1_iu5kfy8 wrote

The appreciation of artistic creation is a function of 1) the artist’s ability to connect the viewer with the art and 2) the viewers ability to connect with the art. Just because you don’t appreciate it doesn’t mean it lacks value or is undeserving of appreciation. It just means that your specific capacities for appreciation don’t apply here.

For the record, having never heard of them before your comment, and just skimming their work online, I enjoy the visual aesthetic of Soutine. And I found your comment terribly unoriginal and pointless, past the fact that it pointed me to a new thing to enjoy.

You should probably evaluate whether what you’re saying has any value before the next time you go to comment about how valueless the things others enjoy are.

2

formerPhillyguy t1_iu5pbr0 wrote

Maybe I should have explained more in depth of what I meant as garbage. Anything can be called art and someone will like it. I can tape a banana to the wall, call it art and attach a $30K price to it and somebody will buy it, if I am famous enough or there is a viral story behind it. According to the guide at the Barnes museum, Sautine was a failing artist who sold his paintings for next to nothing, until Barnes bought some. He didn't buy them because of the quality, only to use them as samples in his art school. Because Barnes bought some, others thought that Sautine's work must be a good investment, not because they liked it, but because someone of stature in the art world bought some. It doesn't mean they're good.

1

LifeSpanner t1_iu5snnm wrote

You literally just restated the last thing you said. I repeat: saying art is “good” or not misses the point of art. Either you connected with it or appreciated it in some way, or you didn’t.

I think buying art with the intention of prospecting its future value is commodifying the object. That is a capitalist process which is, at its heart, incongruent with the philosophy of art and creative expression. At that point, the object is no different than any other commodity, so stating that it’s good or bad at being monetarily valuable becomes a more concrete result of its being bought and sold than it’s merit as an artistic work.

To speak of a work’s artistic merit as “good” or not speaks solely to your ability to receive something that the artist communicated. Whether you enjoyed or appreciated that is a valid opinion, but not a concrete fact.

2

formerPhillyguy t1_iu6py9j wrote

> I think buying art with the intention of prospecting its future value is commodifying the object. That is a capitalist process which is, at its heart, incongruent with the philosophy of art and creative expression. At that point, the object is no different than any other commodity, so stating that it’s good or bad at being monetarily valuable becomes a more concrete result of its being bought and sold than it’s merit as an artistic work.

This is exactly what I mean.

2

TheHatedMilkMachine t1_iu7g3pi wrote

Tape a banana to a wall bruh. Go for it. Maybe you’re an artist. Having the balls to actually do that is art.

0

art4idiots t1_iu7uqox wrote

That whole banana on the wall saga has been one of my most difficult art experiences. I'm still trying to find my footing. Originally, I was angry because while I could read [what I thought was] the intention, "the contemporary art market can encourage slapdash, poor quality work and while it may be good for a moment just rots in short time," it seemed to me to be the type of statement and project that would intentionally garner negative attention and why would this artist throw so much shade and force so many of his peers to defend their work and their passion.

Then i found out the artist was Maurizio Cattelan ... and all of a sudden I felt like the joke was on me the whole time. I fucking adore Maurizio Cattelan and think he's an incredible artist. Now I'm thinking, is that the point?!? I didn't like it until I found out it was him and now I'm like "shit, it's definitely worth 30k lol" with art it's true that the artwork is just one tiny piece of what you buy, what you really buy is a connection to the artist, and with contemporary living artists it's a way to support them and help continue their career...

so is that what he meant?? Did he intend for all of this inner turmoil I'm going through? If it was just some dude I would have totally just brushed it off as shit, but his status has absolutely swayed my understanding of the work, and now I like it??? But it still is a punch line for art haters... but it's also a lightning rod and he can withstand it...? I don't know I'm still so lost on this one. The one thing I know for sure, the art that sticks to my ribs like this ends up being my favorite. Art is supposed to make you think, make you feel, make you question yourself and your reality and by God he's certainly done that for me...

I know you didn't ask for all that lol i think I've just needed to rant about that for awhile now

2

TheHatedMilkMachine t1_iu8pm2q wrote

In direct opposition to what one of the dullards wrote above, the fact that you went through that whole process including this comment is the point of art. The people who say “a kid could’ve done that” aren’t wrong but the part they’re missing is SO WHAT

1

art4idiots t1_iu9gfex wrote

Yea, it's never the gotcha they think it is. I think most kids are better at creating art in general than most adults. They aren't jaded or hindered by self doubt or expectation. Unfortunately, at a certain point, most people lose that ability. I keep a piece or two from all of my family's childhood art. I have a wonderful drawing of a bridge in a city with a shark swimming in the water underneath. That cousin is now an engineer who designs and builds bridges around the world. The art isn't "special" in any way other than a wonderful insight into who he is, and I love that about art.

Edit: I should add that the bridge is meticulously drawn with a ruler on graph paper. He was 8.

2